‘The Hawk Bye Newspaper . Page 1 of 3.

Dee ~ “Daa Subscribe Today | Search the Archive

THE HAWK EYE pera

WY FRONT - HOME - NEWS - SPORTS - OBITUARIES - CLASSIFIEDS - MARKETPLACE - SPECIALS - PHOTOS - CONTACT US + SUBSCRI

Few former IAAP workers claims paid
Other states seeing more success with federal filings.

By TODD DVORAK

The Associated Press

IOWA CITY — For much of his career, Jack Polson was the chief cheniist at the 19,000-acre lowa Aur
Ammunition Plant, where production workers toiled in secrecy for decades assembling nuclear bombs.

Now 79, Polson suffers from bladder cancer, skin cancer and beryilium poisoning and is convinced the
government is trying to evade its promise to compensate him for his ailments, which followed years of
_ ~ exposure tp radiation and other harmful substances at the weapons plant.

"T think it's ‘lear they are looking for an ‘out’ to pay claims,” he said.

So far, 1,041 claims have been filed with the Department of Energy by former LAAP works under a
federal program to compensate the nation's former nuclear weapons workers now diagnosed with health
problems.

Nearly 14,000 claims have been filed by workers nationwide.

stting ogra $ ga x utomatic payne \
Slants in Towa and elsewhere were lef on -_ RE

>
While thousands of workers nationwide have been compensated, fewer than 50 claims filed by Iowa NS
‘weapons workers have been paid.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, calls the former IAAP employees a forgotten bunch.

"These workers have waited years to be compensated,” said Harkin, who is working with other senators
fix the backlog of claims.

“Many of them are buried by burdensome health care bills after years of dealing with work-related Hlne:
and many have died waiting for compensation," he said.

(~waclear bomb components were tested and warheads were assemibled and disassembled at the southeast
\\dowa plant from the late 1940s untill 1975.

http://www.thehawkeye.com/features/IA AP/breaking/b1_0703_html 8/8/2004 ~



__... only when you told my brother that you-were {are} the-contact person; and-that Ms, Omon—— —~"" —~

March 16, 2004
File #

Ms. Kari Waller, Examiner

U. S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Energy Employees Occupational Tilness Compensation Program
719 Second Avenue, Suite 601

Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Ms. Waller:

After consulting my brother, I am writing to make explicit those points that we
have expressed implicitly to you in previous correspondence. There are five.

First, the entire process is frought with ambiguity — even at the most superficial
level. P'll cite just two examples. Both you and Ms. Dori Omon asked us for the same
information. To whom were we to send this information? This question was answered

had turned our file over to you. Further, at one time either you or Ms. Omon asked for a
copy of our father’s death certificate. After considerable time and effort, we obtained a
copy only to learn that it was not needed after all. ©

Second, on a much more profound level, we were not informed by the DOL of the
“special exposure cohort status” for those former cancer-stricken AEC (DOE) former
workers at the IAAP (IOP)?. This was clearly the intent of lowa Senator Tom Harkin
when he drafted the EROICP Act. Yet the DOL kept us in the dark about this vital
provision, suggesting that our claim would likely be denied in the absence of our
mother’s work site documentation.

Third, that our mother was a former AEC worker who died from Uaaqgmgy is
beyond question. If you have examined her medical records (sent either to you or Ms.
Omon), you will see that the last ten years of her life were years of untold suffering as the
cancer ravaged her kidneys, lungs and bones. And I’m sure that you can well imagine the
financial hardship that exacerbated this suffering.

Fourth, the DOL has failed to inform us that cancer-stricken JAAP workers
undoubtedly contracted the disease as a result of the AEC’s assembling and test-firing
nuclear weapons at the plant without providing adequate protection for workers. Sadly,
this state of affairs characterized the U. S. nuclear industry in the early 1950s. Also my


Sincerchp,


Addition to; for your action, consideration; *

in Paragraph 10 of the summary that I received, there is still no
inclusion of these buildings, which were vital to the work done,
1-06-71, 1-08-1, 1-50, 1060, and 1-6-2.

ALL of the melt pour batches were made up in these buildings and
this includes CYCLOTOL, COMP."B” FLAKE "“T N T" AND BARATOL MIXES
The raw material was screened, inspected, weighted, dried as

required in ovenor drum mill heater bare handed for the most part

I have repeatedly informed NIOSH people in telecon of this fact
and still these functional, used, buildings are not included.

Will you please correct this situation? The raw material for each
BARATOL pour was processed in bldg. {-60. Tnis was barium nitrate
primarily and working there for three plus years is where my
breathing problems started. This wAS IN THE

I was sent to our family Dr. because I could only develop four
inches of chest expansion. The Dr. was Gundrum, deadfor some time
and I can not locate any records of that test.

Thanks for any help you can arrange.

10-18-04 Alt:4g jy


The Hawk Eye Newspaper Page 2 of 3

The plant operated under a shroud of secrecy until 1998, when a former worker battling cancer contactec
Harkin for help.

Under the federal compensation program, doctors must investigate each claim, review work histories, pi:
records and monitoring data to determine if an employee's exposure merits approval.

an
x Oo had trouble i i clans Yeon eoristodteen med, |
: or lost.
‘ederal officials have found few records itoring radiation at the Jowa ite months of
searching with the Department of Energy and. ‘various contractors that ran the factory.
4 -
\\ /*Rar and away, it is one of the worst cases of monitoring ing and recordkeeping |
+ ex, a policy analyst wit ernmnie A ability Proje

Former worker Paul Cross, who worked in the safety department for eight years, says daily monitoring 2
record keeping was a priority — but he’s at a loss to explain the whereabouts of those records now.

“We had all kinds of data recorded on radiation," said Cross, who filed a claim after contracting lympho
in 1987. "I've heard the talk about how management was sloppy, but it was a well-run operation.”

In the absence of such data, federal officials are relying on a “site profile,” prepared by scientists from th
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

But critics contend the profile is flawed, including: 7 70> A - nn ee

Failure to recognize several operations that took place at the plant, specifically the factory line where as

many as 40 workers disassembled old or malfunctioning weapons.

Using records at a plant in Texas fo base assumptions on operations, exposure levels and monitoring dat
_ Failing to interview workers who could have provided important details about record keeping, monitorin

and operations.

“Is this a believable approach to be taking when processing these claims?" Miller said. “Is this exactly w
Congress intended when it passed a law to take care of these workers?”

Larry Elliot, director of the office of compensation analysis for NIOSH, said the site profile is still a wor
in progress. :

He said the agency is working to obtain classified documents from the DOE to fill in gaps during the firs
10 years of nuclear bomb production, and officials will soon begin interviewing former workers to draw
clearer picture of operations and monitoring practices at [AAP.

Becanse the site profile Jacks adequate data from the earliest years of production, Elliot said claims filed
workers from that period are being put on hold. He also defended its use of operating assumptions at oth
plants.

"This is a living document," Elliot said. "We think it's a good start ... and we're looking for additional da

hitp://Awww.thehawkeye.com/features/IAAP/breaking/b1_0703.btml 8/8/2004


31-64-04 11:56 Re: eo .
i " SE.L-i5~a00L§

——.-—-7F 1O.l2dom Za — Oa 6 IRE a

4 a ce

This. tolensat fs bo_tantin Phat ng

_ Brather and I y OPler.consydaniible ent, _

_.—.Aaveaot_heen. abe. to. Lock: hese ou tour.

H . a BL Ft a
: . : RS en
L@ny. ic beaxols Lar th. regpeet> Vfasii (hon fowing. -

vediotas and. other decd Yee ke! ot

S00

WW4e I. 0.F., an. bach fon, DBI, He-5---- cee

(1 dellefs ra)-, Having SAL... # amok

7  Lthtn 0 ter... PH OTHCR ,

kworked. Hheve.as. a a
j--Aocal ancl. biate polhoans, alo .. La Ph.
Necos pede 7 i Bee gators. Aave. -Liple rack S lypy ~
record Ke “ng 1 and 7% Yeo | fave. BECE).
can SLege3stes| D> 2c0o15hy US with Oe
Letorts bo tnd fhe records, .. . ..
(We thour records, ank tht Fact thot Mom
Passel aloo rn Vf Seems vo us
phox Yar and science, clees reconstrrction
jé Simply. not possréle,s. .
- fev, Hom Bught a Ser gor bottle with Concer
Phat tot are Conviritech 12303 pus fe racahon
end. fown exposure while she wos on emfleyte a
She IO,

In the interesY of tstiées, we urge yout
torefal consiclerefeor i ote, clan.


Jarmary 24,2004

Seattle, WA 98104
Dear Ms. Waller:

‘Thank you for your letter of January 16, 2004 in which you requested further
documentation of my mother’s (Edith Larson) medical records and employment history.

My brother told me today thathe sent to you copies of my mother’s medical

cee le _tecords, obtained at no small expense. Unfortunately, providing information about my

mother’s work history las been-nmuch-more_diffionlt, but no less expensive. _

On November 20, 2003, I signed, dated and returned forms EE-2 and EE-3 to Ms. .
Janice Barton, a caseworker at the Energy Employees Compensation Resource Center in
Westminister, Colorado. Ms. Barton was kind enough to fill out these forms forme
based on an extended telephone conversation a few days earlier: On form EE-3, based on
memories of almost fifty years ago, I guessed that the “approximate” date of my mother’s
employment history at the IOP was @ ‘0 @IMB Since then, thanks to information
provided by the DOL, I have learned that the exact termination date of my mother’s
employment at the IOP was quam? "So far, my mother’s hire date at the plant has
not been determined, nor, as far as I know, has her work site at the plant.

In an effort to answer these questions, I was able to utilize information provided
tome by Ms. Barton during our phone conversation. She suggested that I contact Ms.
Connie Hutcheroft at American Ordnance, a successor to the [OP.

Ina letter to me dated November 27, 2003, Ms. Hutcheroft acknowledged the
receiving of my letter, said she has no record of my mother’s employment at the IOP, and
said that perhaps my mother was employed at the plant prior to qa", when Day and
Zimmerman were contractors at the plant. She also said that she had forwarded my letter
to Day and Zimmerman.

On November 25, 2003, I received a letter from Ms. Amette Ross, Administrative
Assistant at Day and Zimmerman. She apparently misinterpreted my letter because she


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of F of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
iliness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Page 2 of 7!

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

B Survivor Information — Complete Section B if you

B.1. Name of Survivor:

a Survivor or repres:

@@iirsiMs. First Name Middie Initial “Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor; Poo
B.3 Address of ‘Survivor:

Steet : Apt® P.O. Box

City * State Zip Code
B.4 ‘Telephone Number of Survivor:
B.5 Email Address of Survivor: ~ we ee

B.6 —_- Relationship to Empioyee: C] Spouse a SopDaughter Q Parent
Q Grandparent Q Grandehild

Employee Informati S you are a labor organization.

C1 Name of Employee: ee .
Ll

rd
Mr./Mrs ¢iAs) First Name Middle initiat Last Name
C.2 rormer Name of Employee (e.g., maiden na~~ mann “ame change/oth~"-
ios — =. a, ee
eM )/Ms. "First Name Mraaie Initial LastName

C.3 Social Security Number of Empioyee:
C.4 Address of Employee (if {iving):

“Deceaseo
Street Apt# P.O. Box
City State . Zip Code
C.5 Telephone Number of Employee: ( L x

C& Email Address of Employee:
C.7 Employment Information Related to Petition:

C.7a Employee Number (if known): _ aS
Employee Number poe .
C.7b Dates of Employment: Start _ ee $c

aes i

C.7¢ Employer Name:
C.7d Work Site Location: TDowa Ordnance Plant

Burlington , THA
C.7e SupervisorsName: _ylot knot
5. SS oe EG odo Parte eee
Name or Social Security Number ofS Gone _—

_
we



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
lilness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Heaith

ee OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 4 of 7

Proposed Definition of Employee Class Covered by

£.1 Name of DOE or AWE Facility: .Jowa Ordeninen

E.2 Locations at the Facility relevant to this petition:
Se l~ Serelds' Lene L

E.3 List job titles and/or job duties of employees included in the class. In addition, you can list by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be

included in this class:
—— -
if, 297 Cot
£.4 Employment Dates relevant to this petition:
Start x=." 1 End
Stat _ End <ul
Start End
ES Is the petition based on one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored or
recorded exposure incidents?: ‘{ Yes OQ No

_ Iyes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) and-a complete destription (atch addifonal pages |
as necessary):

Name or Socia! Security Number of First Petitioner: A


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Contro! and Prevention
Miness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0820-0639. Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 2 of 7:

Qi/ire Is. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor: 7 7
B3 Agidroce of Survivor:

=s Apt# P.O. Box
City ~ ‘o> state ZipCode,

B.4 Telephone Number of Survivor: =

B.S Email Address of Survivor: " vee

B.6 _—_— Relationship to Employee: O Spouse R Saughter G Parent

0 Grandparent Q Grandchild

C.1 Name of Employee:

jee: z
TRFTRIS TRIS) First Name Middie Initial Last Name

C24 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden name/legal name change/other):

rn _—-" —_——— aa
be Mr/irJMs. First Name Middle Initial Last Name

C.3 Social Security Number of Employee: ___

C.4 Address of Employee (if fiving):

Deceagech
Sree Apt® P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
€.5 Telephone Number of Employee: d >

C.6 Email Address of Employee:
C7 Employment Information Related to Petition:

C.7a Employee Number (if known): —

€.7b Dates of Employment: Start aS
C.7c EmployerName: Dery & Zimmer En,

i4
C.7d Work Site Location: Lowe Ovi nea Plont

z &

C.7e Supervisors Name: Mot” Knonn

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: Cia? ee



wrote: «Records for employees who worked at the Jowa Amy Ammunition Plant priot
to WW Il are stored ata U. S$. Govermnent Personnel Records Center.” She was also

idnd enough to provide an address for the Center.

Later that day, I wrote back to her that I was seeking information on my mother’s
employment the plant after the start of WW IL In early December, after not hearing fom
Ms. Ross, I called her office. ‘She told me that all existant Day and Ziramerman records
for the IOP had been sent to the National Personmel Reoords Center in St Fons. She
also said that “ninety-five” percent of employment inquities as mine fail to be
sabstantiated by the Center. Naturally, I was not surprised when, yesterday, I reozived a
letter dated “1-15-03” [sic] from William D. Bassman, Chief, Reference Service Branch at
the St. Louis Center. He wrote that he found no records of “Federal Civilian
Employment” for my mother. Similarly, he was unable to find any record of my father’s
— ~~ employment history at the IOP. ,

In ayy letter of 11-19-03 to the St. Louis Center, I also inquired about his
employment history at the IOP because he died at age @@ of ee
thought that his death at a relatively early age might be related to his employment at the
TOP. "That he indeed worked at the plant is noted on my birth certificate, a copy of which
was sent to the DOL.

_ 1 As you see, I was bom on quaaEENESNND , ad my research indicates that Day
‘and Zsamiennair were contractors at the IOP from 1940 to 195}. J find it curious that

neither Day and Zimmerman nor the National Personnel Records Céfiter lias been able to— ---- --
document that he worked at the plant.

_¢ As you know, Ihave enlisted the aid of lowa Senator Charles Grascley’s office in
an effort to establish my mother’s work history at the IOP: Also, Thave retumed the
appropriate Social Security form that your office was kind enongh to send me. T await to
see if these efforts shed at least some light on this matter. They certainly can be no more
unsuccessful than the five-day, $215 personal ad that I placed in the Gazette, a newspaper
that now serves the Burlington, Iowa area.

In summary, let me say that my brother and I will continue our efforis to explore
all avermes in this matter. We hope to be able to provide additional data by February 16,
2004.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,

—s...
=e


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
liness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 6 of 7,

F.3 OQ WWe have attached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
radiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
radiation exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented {imitations might prevent the completion of dose reconstructions for
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation
guidelines.

{Aftach report to the back of the petition form.)

F.4 O We have attached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the
Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
journal, that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of

employees covered by the petition. 2P Sieh reports exw am
(Attach report to the back of the pefifion form.) ropuasfray a lopy of

All Petitioners should sign and date the petition. Amaximum of three persons may sign the petition.

Bf10fae

Sighatire Date 4
a = =
ignature
Signature — Date
Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of

fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who
knowingly accepts compensation io which that person is not entitled is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate
criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
- Cincinnati, OH 45226

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: Gee



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Dissase Contro! and Prevention
iiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Lennon AF eros i pos

£3 List job titles and/or job duties of employees inciuded in the class. In addition, you can list by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be

included in this class: - Fef

£4 Employment Dates relevant to this petition:

Start _ oJ End _
Start End
Start End
E.5 Is the petition based on one or more gafnonitored, corded, or inadequately monitored or
recorded exposure incidents?: Yes PAO :
ff yes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) anda complete description (attach ad wt pays
as necessary): _. OPLAD ; PEAT ©
: — wa: aa eee ee
A 2 LZ f F Al 14
p AQ )= M ‘ 4t. G2
Khe Wr AS , YA tI 2 LALE
NAL DEP 3 AU MO CTP CPR
EF S— fe 2 PILRITEL

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:.


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Dissese Control and Prevention

Miness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number. 0820-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007,
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 5 of 7

that Records and information a)

Compiete at least one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing
the required information related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry.

F.1 Q I/We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate fo this petifion, were not monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area
monitoring.

{Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.

ONO, on Line. Ls

F.2 O We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process. {.
from the site where the employees worked.

{Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to. the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed.

ry cy ~
HO Ooynted “he ta GY cud O Ve ON) with Y24aec4

<
orcing aud pyri te ould he suypriserd)
OVONY An 7 ment_odmis aha LOM SIV Orie Ac Uey -

iN brothey aud ROVE diem OF2G +O7 NG bon Ye DYOD Zn

1D wions

’ etn
Name or Social Security Number one itioner lad


, Special Exposure Cohort Petition Us, Department of of Heaith and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Contro! and Prevention
Nines Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires:

Proposed Definition of Employee Class Covered by Petition — Complete Section E.

E.1 Name of DOE or AWE Facility: 9 _ “Towa Ordnance Play

E.2 Locations at the Facility relevant to this petition:
= ime)

E3 List job titles and/or job duties of employees included in the class. In addition, you can list by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this. form who you believe should be

included in this class: 4 *
—hevernl locations 9% assigned :

E.4 Employment Dates refevant to this petition:

Start _ ; End _ ——
Start. ~ End
Start End

£.5 Is the petition based on one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately moniiored or
recorded exposure incidents ?: & Yes Q No
if yes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) and a complete description (attach additional pages
as necessary);

er ee

EL, Qu ms broker vel
reSared in,
nea Sia ile sie we IA Oetdiet

Name or social ‘secunty lumber one persed
Seceup

Ger



Speciai Exposure Cohort Petition U.S, Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
lliness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 5 of 7|

Basis for Proposing that Records and Information are Inadequate for Individual Dose —
Complete Section F,

Complete at least one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing -
the required information related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry.

F.1 QQ IWe have attached elther documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate to this petition, were not monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area
monitoring.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, fo the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavii(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were noi monitored.

F.2  Q I/ We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process
from the site where the employees worked.

{Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered Megally, or destroyed.

Ud 6 Knap 2 be Depotrmen?- ef Ener: arp Be
7 ¢ vg 9
id 4 "3 .
beard
Lm re
f2 2 eon pect
“ren Fxene+

2 Bnew eohy.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: Spee



The Hawk Eye Newspaper Page 3 of 3

"With the monitoring information that was collected from plants in Texas and elsewhere, we feel the site
profile presents a strong case for the worst levels of exposure that could have happened at Iowa,” he said

Bat many of the lowa workers are dying.

"The workers at IAAP and their families devoted their lives to our national security. and their compensat
is long overdue," Harkin said.

The measure, sponsored by Harkin and Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., would make workers eligible for automa:
payment and sidestep dose reconstruction.

The bill now must survive a joint House and Senate conférence committee when Congress retums from
recess next month.

The Hawk Eye
800 S. Main St, Burlington, Iowa 52601
319-754-8461 - 1-800-897-1708 - FAX 319-754-6824 - webmaster @thehawkeye.com

Ss.
a
oo “, se
Te ee wee "
| es ope Gi Se
© Cen, Sg Seg
ss SB we %, a
NOs We KE Ky i
ma > 7 ed. ee a Be ye
Po. ey *e <e, % g
T 2°63 = SS. Ey “s
K& % % % *% ¥
S pe e % % +S
: ove % % ” "a B
SC «nm em. 2 7 on
a oe Ke he Fe Re ee
¢ 24S 2a ee &TM x x
Po © Se Y |] *ELO Os
~ = zy = S ae ” S +> —
2t.Q% e + Ms *, “sD =. OS
a %— SoS wr F “eS
23 Foe . See SS
ee » © 7 228
ere BB EK + ee
ase Qt ‘a S wo
2% < s Ne a 25%
ee ae 2 3 Gee,
ah Sie ~ eS + & ye oN
4%, " “Se
ek Bipihwww.thehawkeye.com/feanures/LAAP /oreaking/ol_0703 html =


10-18-04 Alt:48 ty

SEC OFFICE of COMPENSATION

ANNALYSIS and SUPPORT

4676 COLUMBIA PARKWAY September 21, 2004
Mail Stop C-47 |

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45226

PETITION NO.

To Whom It May Concern;

I am sending you this sworn ststement that I never in the course
of my employment during _.-. and. the first part of

I never saw any kind of radiation monitoring device, other than
GEIGER COUNTERS in each assembly area.

Be advised that during that period of time, the only assembly of
weapon for the Atomic Energy Commision was in 1-13 Bldg.

Other than that, radiation was not monitered.

No effort was made, no monitoring of any kind, in addition, to
determine individual radiation exposure.

c/e file Notarypublic seal and signiture



brother and I remain convinced that our mother worked on Line One at the plant — where
these deadly weapons were assembled.

Fifth, our mother’s case is being included in the University of Iowa’s study of
former AEC employees, yet the DOL has not acknowledged this fact as far as we know.

In summary, in the 2000 presidential election, both my brother and I voted for a
“compassionate conservative.” We believe that our president would be appalled if he
knew of the DOL’s shameful lack of compassion for our mother, and other cancer-
stricken former AEC employees at the IAAP.

Thank you for your time and attention. We will look forward to hearing from
you.

Sincerely,



provided by University of lowa medical researchers indicates clearly that Silas Mason.
managed the plant from @ile ic Gas ander the auspices of either the AEC or the DOE.

Fourth, the ambiguities regarding the U. S. goverament’s oversight of the plant, I
believe, are profound. For example, Ms. Janice Barton, the DOL case worker who
helped me fll out form BE-2, told me yesterday by phone that the ABC only provided
oversight of the plant, starting in qumme When I told her I thought the correct date was

-, when Silas Mason become the subcontractor at the plant, she said that’s not what
her “book” indicated, but that she’d look into my claim. ‘Within a half hour she called
back and said that Iwas, in fact, correct about the eam. te.

‘And to compound the uncertainties that exist pertinent to the operation of the
plant, you will no doubt remember that you told me yesterday by phone that, while Silas
Mason was subcontractor of the AEC, they ran other plant operations that were not under
the auspices of the AEC. I am confused about this because University of lowa medical
researchers are not making this distinction when it comes to the exposure to radiation at
the plant. Mr. Howard Nicholson told me by phone that my mother was a DOE
employee, and that their records indicate that she developed name ; 1
believe that this statement made by a medical researcher of the plant*s employees should
be accorded considerable weight. After all, if our mother is to be included ina
government sponsored study for the DOE, to deny our request for her inclusion in the
special exposure cohort status would, we feel, be contrary to the rationale for drafting the

-—special exposure. provision in the first place. In fact, to deny our request, we believe,
would be a violation of both the letter and the spifit of thiat at“

_ Insum, while no amount of money would be able to compensate for the ten years
of pain and financial loss that preceeded her death as a result of her employment by the
AEC, we feel that the U: S. government’s granting of our request for special cohort status
would be 2 good faith effort to make up for the harm it unintentionally caused our
mother.

Thank you for your time and attention. We will look forward to hearing from
you.
®
Sincerely,


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Conirol and Prevention |

under the Energy Employees Occupational

iiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number. 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 6 of 7|

F.3. OQ {We have attached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
radiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
radiation exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion of dose reconstructions for
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation
guidelines.

{Attach report fo the back of the petition form.)

F.4 0) ie have attached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the
Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
journal, that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of

employees covered by the petition.
{Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

Signature of Person(s} Submitting this Petition — Complete Section G.
All Petitioners should sian and date the netition. A maximum of three persons may sign the petition.

==, Te Fn OF
Signature © Date *
Signature Date
Signature _ Date
Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of

fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEQICPA or who
knowingly accepts compensation fo which that person is not entitled is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as. well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate
criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. ! affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

NIOSH
46765 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
. Cincinnati, OH 45226

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Contra! and Prevention
liness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health |-

OMB Number: 0920-0633 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form 8 Page 5 of 7

F Basis for Proposing that Records and Information are Inadequate for. Individual Dose — _
Complete Section F.
Complete at least one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing

the required information related to the selection. You are not required fo complete more than one entry.

Fi Q WWe have atiached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate fo this petition, were not monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area.
monitcring.

* (Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)
Describe as compietely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.

F.2 lf We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been fost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process

from the site where the employees worked.
(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as compietely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed.

Name or Sociai Security Number of First Petitioner.” - . Z . .



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Ensray Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Wness Compensation Act Naiional Institute for Occupational Safety and Healt

5 OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007,
Special Exposure Cohort Petition -— Form B Page 6 of 7'

F.3 0 IWe have aifached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
radiation dose reconstruction dacumenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
radiation exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion of dose reconsiructions for
members of the cless under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation
guidelines.

(Attach report fo the back of the petition form.)

F.4 0 MWe have attached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the
Executive Branch of Goverment or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
Joumal, that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or ioss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of

employees covered by the petition. ee kr eports oxigt, Lom
(Attach report to the back of the petifion form.) regvestt of Same.

G Signature of Person(s) Submitting this Petition — Complete Section G.
All Petitionosehould sian and date the petition. A maximum of three persons may sign the petition.

27 Seed poltiatsre _a[tsfoy
. _ Date

Signature ~
Signature Date
Signature ‘ : Mat . Date
Notice: Any person who knowingly Takes any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of

fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA ar who
knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitled is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate
criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-~47
- Cincinnati, OH 45226

ed
Name or Sacial Security Number oe Stoner _ - —


Ms. Kari Waller, Examiner

U. S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
719 Second Avenue, Suite 601

Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Ms. Waller:

My brother and I would like the DOL to go forward with our claim, and Iam
writing this letter in an attempt to show why our claim should be placed under the special
exposure cohort provision of the EEOICP Act.

We believe this placement is warranted due to ambiguities and lost or missing

-~ employment, data pertinent to the operation of the IAAP in Middletown, Iowa. I would

like to-cite a few examples.

First, in previous correspondence to you, it was pointed out that Day and
Zimmerman, the plant contractors with the AEC prior to 1951, are unable to provide
information about my mother’s work Sites at the plant: Also, I stated in my affidavit to
the DOL that University of lowa medical researchers, while able to determine my
mother’s two badge numbers, were unable to shed any light as to her work sites at the
plant due to lost or missing records.

Second, her employment history at the plant remains problematic. Social Security

information shows that my mother made contributions to the program ir Qua). and
;when the plant was under the operation of Day and Zimmerman. Apparently no

contributions were made from . ga. Yet, in your letter of December 19, 2003,
you wrote: “The Department of Energy (DOE) was able to provide us with the
termination date for ES | The central question here, of
course, is: How does one explain the five year gap regarding Social Security
contributions and the DOR’s termination date of my mother’s employment?

Third, is the DOE in fact correct when it asserts that my mother’s termination date
was QP Was she not still a DOE employee when the plant was under the
administration of Silas Mason? Social Security records indicate that Silas Mason
reported contributions made by our mother from Wa and @iamp od information